linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/27] [rfc] vfs scalability patchset

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 28 Apr 2009 05:09:30 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, npiggin@...e.de,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/27] [rfc] vfs scalability patchset

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 09:06:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Maybe...  What Eric proposed is essentially a reuse of s_list for per-inode
> list of struct file.  Presumably with something like i_lock for protection.
> So that's not a conflict.

But what do we actually want it for?  Right now it's only used for
ttys, which Nick has split out, and for remount r/o.  For the normal
remount r/o case it will go away once we have proper per-sb writer
counts.  And the fource remount r/o from sysrq is completely broken.

A while ago Peter had patches for files_lock scalability that went even
further than Nicks, and if I remember the arguments correctly just
splitting the lock wasn't really enough and he required additional
batching because there just were too many lock roundtrips.  (Peter, do
you remember the defails?)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/